Monday, June 7, 2010

Article Tools

If whiskey is for drinking, as Mark Twain once famously said, then medical marijuana seems to have trumped water as the substance of choice “for fighting over.” After meeting on the matter no less than 21 times in the past two years, the Santa Barbara City Council has still not found resolution on how best to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. Or whether to allow them at all. In a pre-emptive move to head off the growing legion of pot-prohibitionists, Mayor Helene Schneider and councilmember Bendy White — who both have supported a limited number of dispensaries — proposed placing two competing initiatives on the ballot this November to allow city voters to decide. One of the measures would ban any and all storefront dispensaries of medical marijuana within city limits. The other would ask voters to ratify an ordinance allowing up to five dispensaries throughout the city, along with a host of new rules, regulations, and operating restrictions.

A cartoon image of Mayor Helene Schneider depicted in the mailer sent out by Santa Barbara Citizens Against Marijuana Dispensaries

Schneider and White issued a public announcement of their intentions this past weekend, shortly after a new organization, Santa Barbara Citizens Against Marijuana Dispensaries, mailed a two-page call-to-arms to every household in the city, asking residents to show up at this Tuesday’s council meeting to demand a total ban on dispensaries. The flyer posted competing images of Santa Barbara’s destiny: “American Riviera or Marijuana Mecca.” The text argued, “Selling pot for medical or recreational use is not legal. Community leaders declare that marijuana dispensaries are a clear and present danger to our community and her citizens. Why is our council not listening?”

The mailer targeting Mayor Schneider, suggesting that she’s the unwitting dupe of pro-pot forces. “Councilmember Das Williams and Grant House are determined to have pot sold all over the city,” the flyer read. “They’re tools of the pro-pot lobby and it is very shrill. Our mayor wants to be seen as compassionate, but she’s just being used by these forces.”

Schneider was less than thrilled by the attention. “Trying to bully me with a citywide anonymous mailer is not the way to get through to me,” she declared. Schneider noted that many of the claims contained in the flyer were factually inaccurate. She said the compromise ordinance approved by a 5-2 vote two weeks ago was one of the strictest medical dispensary regulations anywhere in the state. She expressed frustration that councilmember Frank Hotchkiss—who voted for the compromise measure—announced that he has since changed his mind and is opposing final ratification. “The community is fed up. I’m fed up,” Schneider said.

Paul Wellman

Frank Hotchkiss

Some activists pushing for a ban were skeptical about Schneider’s initiative proposal. “That’s a last resort,” said Jim Westby, a neighborhood activist, City Hall critic, and political strategist involved in getting conservative councilmembers Frank Hotchkiss and Michael Self elected. “We deal with tough issues all the time. To me it should be a slam dunk when you see all the people lined up in favor of a ban. Why doesn’t Mayor Helene put public safety ahead of dispensaries that make up to $100,000 a month?”

Westby, however, did not say he was opposed to the initiative; he would consider it. As a practical matter, though, he noted that the November ballot already included a statewide initiative to legalize marijuana sale and consumption for recreational purposes. The state pot ballot would give cities and counties the responsibility of enacting whatever ordinances they saw fit; it would also give them the ability to tax and collect revenues from such operations. To have so many marijuana-related initiatives on the same ballot could be confusing, Westby said.

Schneider said it would require only four votes to put the dueling pot initiatives on this November’s ballot. Westby argued that a unanimous vote would be required instead. That’s because, he said, City Hall is not holding its regularly scheduled elections this Fall and it requires a unanimous vote for the council to place something on the ballot in such instances. But Schneiders’ advisors contend that a four-vote majority will suffice because no new taxes are being sought. A unanimous vote would have been required if voters were being asked to approve a tax increase.

Paul Wellman

Bendy White

In addition, Jeramy Lindaman — campaign manager to both Schneider and White — said he’s heard credible reports of possible pot-related initiatives scheduled for the following November. (One would be to ban dispensaries altogether; the other would be to launch a recall campaign against councilmembers who supported dispensaries. Councilmember Grant House — an ardent supporter of medical marijuana — has been named, as has councilmember Das Williams. Williams, who is now running in the Democratic Party primary for the 35th State Assembly seat, will be termed out of city office at the end of next year.)

Next November is when new councilmember Michael Self, a staunch conservative and opponent of dispensaries, will be up for re-election. Lindaman — who typically represents Democratic and progressive candidates — is anxious to prevent medical marijuana from becoming the defining wedge issue that ushers in a new conservative majority in next year’s council race. By placing it on the ballot this year — as opposed to next — he’s hoping to defuse what could still be political dynamite the following year. In addition, the initiative would resolve an issue that’s defied resolution despite the council’s considerable exertions thus far. Some councilmembers, like Bendy White, have expressed concern that the issue has become a drain on limited council resources at a time when more pressing matters — like the city’s budget — need to be addressed.

Paul Wellman (file)

Michael Self

The other event precipitating Schneider’s and White’s proposal is the political about-face just executed by councilmember Frank Hotchkiss on his vote in favor of a compromise ordinance that would allow dispensaries. Without Hotchkiss’s vote, the compromise dispensary measure — hammered out by the council two weeks ago — will lack the five vote super-majority needed to pass. Hotchkiss reported that he would move to have his vote reconsidered, which as a member of the prevailing side, he’s entitled to do. But failing that, Hotchkiss announced that he will not be voting in favor of final ratification of the dispensary measure. This leaves the council — and the city’s medical marijuana ordinance — in a confusing state of limbo. Barring a council action on the matter, an ordinance approved two years ago will remain on the books, even though all seven councilmembers have said they agree it’s no good. Hotchkiss — who as a member of the council’s ordinance committee helped draft the latest compromise proposal — said he was now voting against it because he’s heard so many educators, youth advocates, and people in the recovery community have complained that it’s not restrictive enough.

In recent months, a loose confederation of anti-dispensary activists have grown more politically organized, enlisting the involvement of Sheriff Bill Brown, City College President Andrea Serban, Public school superintendent Brian Sarvis, and the Santa Barbara Police Officers Association. In addition, State Assemblymember Pedro Nava has been outspoken in his criticism of City Hall’s response to medical marijuana dispensaries, likening the situation to the “wild west.” They’ve complained that the City Council has turned a deaf ear to their concerns. Chief among these was that dispensaries be kept no less than 1,000 feet from schools, parks, and recovery facilities. But planners with City Hall stated that a 1,000-foot buffer requirement was the functional equivalent to a total ban because no dispensaries could be allowed.

Comments

These people who want to ban dispensaries seem to forget that Santa Barbara passed "Measure P" in 2006 which puts cannabis laws as the lowest law enforcement priority. Even if dispensaries were banned, law enforcement would have a difficult time enforcing such laws when there are other more important things to deal with.

These people also seem to forget that support for medical marijuana, nation-wide, is at about 80%. I imagine it's got to be 90%+ in this town.

These 'red-shirts' are such a minority it is a joke. It's really great to see Das Williams, Bendy White and Helene Schneider stand up for the people of Santa Barbara, even though I disagree with much of their political philosophy.

It is horrible to see Dale Francisco spreading vicious lies about the legality of medical cannabis in our state. His gross mis-interpretation of a judge's statement that doesn't consider whether these dispensaries help provide the patients with a safe way to obtain their medicine is endangering sick people in our town. He is wrong, he is brazen and he is in the minority. I think he should be removed from office.

Don't these people have ANYTHING better to do than go after people who smoke marijuana? Give me a break. What are they soooooooo afraid of? A pothead is going to break into a liquor store and steal candy bars? Marijuana mellows people out and is much less dangerous than alcohol. I think it's funny that our anti-weed candidate for DA, Josh Lynn, happened to attend the most pro-marijuana college in the nation, UC Santa Cruz. Why is it that when people get into politics, they are afraid to tell the truth? Legalize marijuana across the board. If SB tries to pass a complete ban on marijuana, I have a feeling they would have a pretty big lawsuit on their hands for not allowing people to have access to their medicine. How about this, focus on some REAL issues that affect the city, like not giving out insane free handouts to homeless so that we have become the homeless capital of America! SB politicians and people that actually go to City Council meetings are the people who have nothing better to do than try and harass their neighbor and be all up in other people's business. To each his own. Whatever happened to privacy and staying out of your neighbor's business? GET A LIFE PEOPLE!

The ballot proposal is just a big cop out. The council should enact a ban now, before dispensaries become even more pervasive than they already are. And they can, with one more vote. The unwillingness of the Mayor to provide that vote is deeply disappointing.

The problem here is not medical marijuana per se, although it is not and never will be an FDA-approved medication in its raw form, and for good reason. The problem is the proliferation of for-profit marijuana traffickers doing business under the guise of providing a health service. There are very few conditions for which marijuana serves a legitimate medical purpose. It helps stimulate appetite in AIDS and chemotherapy patients, and it can help people with glaucoma. Even in these cases, there are serious problems. Accurate dosing is impossible, and smoking involves inhaling carcinogens as well as inhibiting lung function. But what percentage of current dispensary customers are using it for one of these reasons? Certainly not enough to keep over a dozen retailers in business. The vast majority of sales are not medical at all, and are therefore legally indefensible. That's why people have turned against the dispensaries.

This should be a no-brainer for the city council, and it has been for the vast majority of cities along our coast. Almost nobody wants one of these places in their neighborhood, and I have no doubt that an initiative would show that, if the options were put clearly to the voters. The quality of life of downtown residents is already compromised by the excesses of the so-called entertainment zone, gang activity, and the apparently intractable homeless problem. Most council members appear to be oblivious to what life downtown is actually like. We need to arrest Santa Barbara's descent into the vice capital of the central coast, not to aid and abet it.

We shouldn't have to wait until November to solve this problem, and we shouldn't have to do the council's work for it. They should pass a ban now and get to work on the many other problems facing our city.

The fact that illegal activity will persist under a ban is no excuse for condoning non-medical use of so-called medical marijuana. In other words, it's ALL black market already. The real choice is between making recreational use of marijuana, which is illegal, easier or more difficult--in other words, more or less prevalent. Those of us who live or work downtown and see the results of substance abuse on our city on a daily basis would like to see it less prevalent. The police department, the schools, the president of City College and the substance abuse clinics agree with us. These organizations are on the front line when it comes to substance abuse in our city. They know what they're talking about. The Mayor should listen to them.

I am not so sure the "majority" of Santa Barbara community necessarily is against pot stores, as Santa Barbara has a lot more pot consumers that one may think; however, a majority of City voters may be against pot stores.

To appease the public well before a vote on pot stores occurs, the City really should finish the enforcement against all those existing post stores that have been declared illegal, non-compliant, etc. but still are open for business.

Let's not forget where people WILL get their marijuana if the dispensaries are shut down: from illegal and completely unregulated dealers. It's not like they are going to stop using pot or stop buying it once the dreaded dispensaries are gone.

I really don't buy the arguments from opponents anyway. Every time I drive by a dispensary, if I didn't already know where they are, I would have no clue they are there. They are hardly the public nuisance they have been made out to be.

You're right Num1UofAn, the people who are advocating the ban are nothing less than control freaks who don't know anything about the issue.

il_miglione is a perfect example of somebody who is completely uneducated about cannabis, yet attempts to control other people's behavior regarding the substance.

il_miglione claims that medical cannabis only provides relief for a small select range of conditions that are relatively uncommon. It actually provides relief for hundreds of very common conditions.

They claim that consumers ingest carcinogens when they smoke. They don't consider that some patients use edibles, others use vaporizers, and even those who do smoke the substance don't have to worry because studies have shown that cannabis consumers have lower chance of neck, throat and lung cancer than people who don't smoke anything. Cannabis has been shown to shrink brain tumors in mice. It is a proven anti-carcinogen, yet the anti-cannabis platform resoundingly continues to push lies about cannabis onto the public.

They say it makes people stupid, yet studies have shown that there are no measurable long-term deficiencies in intellect even for long-term heavy users. Hell, I just obtained my graduate degree with a 4.0 GPA. I couldn't have done it WITHOUT cannabis. I'm smarter than the most all of the people advocating prohibition who claim that cannabis makes you stupid. I know this because I've witnessed them in person slinging their BS at the City Council.

They say it causes more accidents on the road.. Yet study after study, often funded by governments, show that cannabis consumers drive more cautiously and often times safer than sober drivers. Many of these studies have shown that they cause LESS accidents. Go ahead, look them up, there have been about a dozen major studies done in the US, in Australia and in England that have attempted to show cannabis makes drivers more dangerous and the study ended up showing the opposite result.

It's ridiculously ironic mystery why there are so many people who can't mind their own business and refuse to admit that they were lied to by their DARE officer or equivalent.

What if BOTH initiatives fail?I am against a ban AND I believe limiting dispensaries to just five presents the opportunity for a monopoly situation to arise which would ultimately adversely effect patients.And how about if/when the statewide full legalization initiative passes?Every time a procannabis bill is on the ballot it passes.You don't have to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind is blowing. Our local Taliban can send out all the ignorant ugly mailers they want, dress in red and lie in their statements before the city council, but we've already won the culture war, and that includes cannabis.

il_miglione at least with dispensaries i know that mymeds are of good quality and for the most part organicany shop thats worth its salt will make sure of this because they know their vendorsi also know that the money i spend with my dispensarystays in california and doesnt go south of the boardertax it build more play grounds and parkshire more fireman and policemansb420 is here to stay

there are so many more uses for cannibis than smoking it. That's why it will never be FDA approved, it'll put a good amount of over the counter pain relievers out of business. The fear mongering crowd wants the 1950's back.

Let's show up at City Council next Tuesday to protest further restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries. The recent bust is a good example of how a police state operates. Prop 215 and SB 420 were resoundingly approved by California voters. Politicians and police who ignore this ought to be ousted. Ask your friends to join us.

I am not a City resident nor have I needed to turn to local dispensaries, but I hope they are there when I need them. I am an elder caregiver to a patient with pulmonary fibrosis, an incurable and progressive degeneration of the lungs. She coughs uncontrollably at night. Without medical marijuana in edible form, she would not be able to sleep. With medication made legal by current legislation (verified with physician's records recommending sleep relief) my patient has refreshing sleep without side effects. Pharmaceuticals would depress her breathing functions, but edible marijuana does not. She is available for her children and grandchildren and enjoys her life. If her private permitted crop (which I maintain) fails, she must rely on the dispensaries for edibles or supplies to make her nightime dose. This is medicine, folks, and I'm seeing it in action. You wouldn't want your own mother or grandmother to be without this. She has no safe option for a non-narcotic medicine without side effects otherwise. People with substance abuse issues will find their own sources regardless, while the innocent patients with real needs who want to be legal will suffer. The City Council needs to know just whom they are affecting.

I got one of the fliers from the red-shirts. These people are bitter about losing their children, and they are taking it out on others, rather than looking inward - must be too painful. Easier to take all of that energy, and deny others the safe use of cannabis, because they lost child due to narcotics and alcohol?? Absurd.We, as a community/society, have to "obey" their demands? NO. NO. NO we don't.I watched my brother writhing in pain, unable to keep food down. He died a slow, painful, agonizing death from the AIDS virus 25 years ago. Marijuana gave him COMFORT. He was able to keep food down, and get some nutrition into his body. Marijuana gave him an appetite, and eased his physical and emotional pain. I hope you did not deny your loved ones relief from pain, or love and compassion. And you red-shirts have the gall to make demands about the comfort of others in situations that you cannot imagine?? Who in the world do you think you are? The only ones who have loss? You couldn't control the behavior and ultimate death of your loved ones, so you are going to try to control others, for a substance that was NOT responsible for your loss?

You insult me, the memory of MY dead, beloved brother!And anyone else who is ill, suffering, living in constant pain, or who choose, as ADULTS to use marijuana for relaxation, just as you might enjoy a glass of wine, or a beer.

I am tired of paying the price for your loss.Do you feel that your sorrow trumps that of others? RedShirts, please put all of this energy into your own healing. Or something positive, like working with children, instead of holding us responsible for your losses due to narcotics and alcohol.We ALL share the pain at the death of our loved ones. But for you to send these hateful, untrue attack messages is just revealing your uneducated/uninformed desperation to make sense of your tragic loss. Don't take it out on the adults of Santa Barbara. Stay out of our business. We did not cause your pain. Nor did marijuana. And you know that.

Did you read in News Press, that Mr. Francisco oncologists said only 500 people need dispensaries. of those 300 have aid/hiv in all of santa barbara. that means that only 200 have canser an other medical conditions in all of santa barbara. we must be the healthiest city in the world with only 500 people at most sick.